[CLees]

Originally Posted by cvap

This might of been mentioned already, but maybe raising the minimum wage will backfire on the libs and force many off of social programs which are their bread and butter of control.

Many "libs" in ct are actually "lib"ertarians and more government control is the last thing they want.

[cvap]

Yes but not enough are "libertarians"

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by cvap

This might of been mentioned already, but maybe raising the minimum wage will backfire on the libs and force many off of social programs which are their bread and butter of control.

I don't know what you're smoking, but, it seems like you're inhaling too deep in the Fox derp bubble.

Isn't getting people off social programs a good thing-- something people across the political spectrum can support? The liberal/social control through welfare meme pretty much only exists in ultra-conservative circles, talk radio and Fox news.

Sorry, I'm not sitting here as a liberal cheering growth in the welfare roles because of "control". Absurd.

[CLees]

Originally Posted by cvap

Yes but not enough are "libertarians"

Because they dont realize that they are. They are "unaffiliated" which means they think they are being open-minded but they are truly buying into the 2 party system. I bet if a survey went out to everyone in this state that asked questions about their political beliefs then the results of at least 90 percent of the surveys would show that they should be libertarians.

The liberals in this state are more conservative than average and the conservatives are more liberal than average. We all believe practically the same things on big issues but quarrel forever over the little ones..

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by AntonioR

The alternative is to fire some of your employees (or fire all of them and then re-hire them as part time with no benefits, that way you lower part of your overhead cost), that way you don't have to raise the prices by so much and keep as many of your clients happy.

Another possible way is to hire illegal immigrants.

I guess...but isn't that counteractive to growing the economy.

Macys has done this at the warehouse in Cheshire. I believe 600 people were let go and about 200 hired back as part time.

[cvap]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

I don't know what you're smoking, but, it seems like you're inhaling too deep in the Fox derp bubble.

Isn't getting people off social programs a good thing-- something people across the political spectrum can support? The liberal/social control through welfare meme pretty much only exists in ultra-conservative circles, talk radio and Fox news.

Sorry, I'm not sitting here as a liberal cheering growth in the welfare roles because of "control". Absurd.

I'll never forget that quote of Johnson's back in the 60's " We'll have them ______r's voting Democrat till the end of time". And he was right. That is the only reason for my absurd statement.

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

I'm sure there is lots of fraud. I don't doubt it. However, there are many who truly need the support and we can't abandon them in an effort to eliminate fraud.

Well.. Here's a thought...

if you really want fraud drastically reduced , penalize it severly. I'd favor a one year ban on every single penny of any government aid to anyone guilty of fraud, as well as all in their household (to close the backdoor way out), and a lifetime ban for a 2nd offense. That would include all Social Welfare assistance of any kind.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by bobtn

People MUST continuously add skills, and get beyond minimum wage jobs. We need these to return as they were when i was a teen to a few groups: teenagers , most of whom added education and training to leave them behind a few years later, 2nd income in family types (but even that is risky with 50% divorce), and retirees supplementing SS.

I laugh when I hear people say "You can't raise a family on X $", as they are complaining that their round peg will not fit in a square hole. The problem is not that these jobs can't do that, it is the fact many are too unmotivated to fix the root cause problem, a lack of skills having developed a lifestyle dependent on them having obtained more skills.

But not everyone is capable of those jobs (yes, more are than people make of it, I'll agree with you there, and it was a good response, but certainly not everyone). Do we just "cull them from the herd"?

Originally Posted by bobtn

if you really want fraud drastically reduced , penalize it severly. I'd favor a one year ban on every single penny of any government aid to anyone guilty of fraud, as well as all in their household (to close the backdoor way out), and a lifetime ban for a 2nd offense. That would include all Social Welfare assistance of any kind.

On the other hand, I completely agree with this one, but in theory it's already done, in fact I think the first offense penalty is 5 years and the 2nd offense a lifetime ban.

[AntonioR]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

I guess...but isn't that counteractive to growing the economy.

Macys has done this at the warehouse in Cheshire. I believe 600 people were let go and about 200 hired back as part time.

Yes, but try telling that to politicians.

[nep321]

Conservatives are obsessed with the theory that welfare is being massively abused across the state of CT. Research has shown that the level of welfare abuse is negligible.

The OP's solution is to have people "continuously add new skills and move past minimum wage jobs." Give me a mother _______ break. College tuition is astronomically high, yet many of these pre-college or college aged people are stuck in jobs that only pay $8.70 per hour. If you so desire these unskilled workers to get an education and get into a higher skilled job, WHY on earth would you keep their wages set extra low AND expect them to cover the highest tuition costs in our nation's history? That's a dangerous path to take, and the U.S. is rapidly losing its competitive talent base compared to other nations. We NEED more talent for the jobs of tomorrow.

Please. Just pay your employees 45 cents more per year over the next three years and HELP them get the education, skills and talent they need to fill tomorrow's jobs.

Your premise was contradictory.

Christ.